Discussion assignment

11/18/21, 9:51 PM Rubric Assessment - CSIA 413 7381 Cybersecurity Policy, Plans, and Programs (2218) - UMGC Learning Management System

https://learn.umgc.edu/d2l/lms/competencies/rubric/rubrics_assessment_results.d2l?ou=616134&evalObjectId=3479296&evalObjectType=5&userId=… 1/11

50/50 Discussion Participation with Critiques and

Follow-ups Course: CSIA 413 7381 Cybersecurity Policy, Plans, and Programs (2218)

Timeliness of

Initial Posting On Time Late Very Late No Submission Criterion Score

Timeliness of

Response to

Discussion

Paper

Assignment

/ 55 points

Posted response

to topic

assignment

before 11:59 PM

ET on Sunday.

4 points

Posted response

to topic

assignment

before 11:59 PM

ET on Monday.

3 points

Posted response

to topic

assignment

before 11:59 PM

ET on Tuesday.

0 points

Did not post

response to topic

assignment

before 11:59 PM

ET on Tuesday.

"Short

Paper"

(Response

to Topic

Assignme

nt)

Excellent Outstanding Acceptable Needs Improvemen t

Needs Significant Improvemen t

Missing or No Work Submitted

Criterion Score

11/18/21, 9:51 PM Rubric Assessment - CSIA 413 7381 Cybersecurity Policy, Plans, and Programs (2218) - UMGC Learning Management System

https://learn.umgc.edu/d2l/lms/competencies/rubric/rubrics_assessment_results.d2l?ou=616134&evalObjectId=3479296&evalObjectType=5&userId=… 2/11

"Short

Paper"

(Response

to Topic

Assignme

nt)

Excellent Outstanding Acceptable Needs Improvemen t

Needs Significant Improvemen t

Missing or No Work Submitted

Criterion Score

Introducti

on

/ 7.57.5 points

Provided an

excellent

introduction

to the

deliverable

which

clearly,

concisely,

and

accurately

addressed

the topic of

the short

paper.

Appropriatel

y

paraphrased

information

from

authoritative

sources.

6.5 points

Provided an

outstanding

introduction

to the

deliverable

which

clearly and

accurately

addressed

the topic of

the short

paper.

Appropriatel

y

paraphrased

information

from

authoritative

sources.

5.5 points

Provided an

acceptable

introduction

to the

deliverable

which

addressed

the topic of

the short

paper.

Appropriatel

y

paraphrased

information

from

authoritative

sources.

4.5 points

Provided an

introduction

to the

deliverable

but the

section

lacked some

required

details.

Information

from

authoritative

sources was

mentioned.

2 points

Attempted

to provide

an

introduction

to the

deliverable

but this

section

lacked detail

and/or was

not well

supported

by

information

drawn from

authoritative

sources (too

many

quotations

or improper

paraphrasing

).

0 points

Introduction

was missing

or no work

submitted.

11/18/21, 9:51 PM Rubric Assessment - CSIA 413 7381 Cybersecurity Policy, Plans, and Programs (2218) - UMGC Learning Management System

https://learn.umgc.edu/d2l/lms/competencies/rubric/rubrics_assessment_results.d2l?ou=616134&evalObjectId=3479296&evalObjectType=5&userId=… 3/11

"Short

Paper"

(Response

to Topic

Assignme

nt)

Excellent Outstanding Acceptable Needs Improvemen t

Needs Significant Improvemen t

Missing or No Work Submitted

Criterion Score

Analysis / 17.517.5 points

Provided an

excellent

analysis of

the issues

for the

required

topic.

Addressed at

least three

separate

issues and

provided

appropriate

examples for

each.

Appropriatel

y used and

cited

information

from

authoritative

sources.

15.5 points

Provided an

outstanding

analysis of

the issues

for the

required

topic.

Addressed at

least two

separate

issues and

provided

appropriate

examples for

each.

Appropriatel

y used and

cited

information

from

authoritative

sources.

14.5 points

Provided an

acceptable

analysis of

the issues

for the

required

topic.

Addressed at

least one

specific

issue and

provided an

appropriate

example.

Appropriatel

y used and

cited

information

from

authoritative

sources.

12.5 points

Addressed

the required

topic but the

analysis

lacked

details or

was

somewhat

disorganized

.

Appropriatel

y used and

cited

information

from

authoritative

sources.

6.5 points

Mentioned

the required

topic but the

analysis was

very

disorganized

or off topic.

OR, the

analysis did

not

appropriatel

y use

information

from

authoritative

sources (too

many

quotations

or improper

paraphrasing

).

0 points

Analysis was

missing or

no work was

submitted.

11/18/21, 9:51 PM Rubric Assessment - CSIA 413 7381 Cybersecurity Policy, Plans, and Programs (2218) - UMGC Learning Management System

https://learn.umgc.edu/d2l/lms/competencies/rubric/rubrics_assessment_results.d2l?ou=616134&evalObjectId=3479296&evalObjectType=5&userId=… 4/11

"Short

Paper"

(Response

to Topic

Assignme

nt)

Excellent Outstanding Acceptable Needs Improvemen t

Needs Significant Improvemen t

Missing or No Work Submitted

Criterion Score

Summary / 1010 points

Included an

excellent

summary

section for

the short

paper which

was on

topic, well

organized,

and covered

at least 3

key points.

The

summary

contained at

least one full

paragraph.

9 points

Included an

outstanding

summary

paragraph

for the short

paper which

was on topic

and covered

at least 3

key points.

8 points

Included a

summary

paragraph

for the short

paper which

was on topic

and provided

an

appropriate

closing.

5 points

Included a

summary

paragraph

but, this

section

lacked

content or

was

disorganized

.

1 point

Included a

few

summary

sentences

for the short

paper.

0 points

Did not

include a

summary for

the short

paper.

11/18/21, 9:51 PM Rubric Assessment - CSIA 413 7381 Cybersecurity Policy, Plans, and Programs (2218) - UMGC Learning Management System

https://learn.umgc.edu/d2l/lms/competencies/rubric/rubrics_assessment_results.d2l?ou=616134&evalObjectId=3479296&evalObjectType=5&userId=… 5/11

"Short

Paper"

(Response

to Topic

Assignme

nt)

Excellent Outstanding Acceptable Needs Improvemen t

Needs Significant Improvemen t

Missing or No Work Submitted

Criterion Score

Use of

Authoritat

ive

Sources

/ 55 points

Included and

properly

cited three

or more

authoritative

sources with

complete

publication

or retrieval

information.

No

formatting

errors.

4 points

Included and

properly

cited three

or more

authoritative

sources

(minor errors

allowable).

Reference

list entries

contain

sufficient

information

to enable

the reader to

find and

retrieve the

cited

sources.

3 points

Included and

cited two or

more

authoritative

sources

(minor errors

in citations

or reference

entries).

Reference

list entries

contain

sufficient

information

to enable

the reader to

find and

retrieve the

cited

sources.

2 points

Included and

cited at least

one

authoritative

source

(minor errors

in citations

or reference

entries).

Reference

list entries

contain

sufficient

information

to enable

the reader to

find and

retrieve the

cited

sources.

1 point

Mentioned

at least one

authoritative

source but,

the citations

and/or

reference list

entries

lacked

required

information

(not

sufficient to

retrieve the

correct

resource).

0 points

References

and citations

were

missing. Or,

no work

submitted.

11/18/21, 9:51 PM Rubric Assessment - CSIA 413 7381 Cybersecurity Policy, Plans, and Programs (2218) - UMGC Learning Management System

https://learn.umgc.edu/d2l/lms/competencies/rubric/rubrics_assessment_results.d2l?ou=616134&evalObjectId=3479296&evalObjectType=5&userId=… 6/11

"Short

Paper"

(Response

to Topic

Assignme

nt)

Excellent Outstanding Acceptable Needs Improvemen t

Needs Significant Improvemen t

Missing or No Work Submitted

Criterion Score

Profession

alism

/ 55 points

No

formatting,

grammar,

spelling, or

punctuation

errors.

Submitted

work shows

outstanding

organization

and the use

of color,

fonts, titles,

headings

and sub-

headings,

etc. is

appropriate

to the

assignment

type.

4 points

Work

contains

minor errors

in

formatting,

grammar,

spelling or

punctuation

which do not

significantly

impact

professional

appearance.

Work needs

some

polishing to

improve

professional

appearance.

3 points

Errors in

formatting,

spelling,

grammar, or

punctuation

which need

attention /

editing to

improve

professional

appearance

of the work.

2 points

Submitted

work has

numerous

errors in

formatting,

spelling,

grammar, or

punctuation.

Substantial

polishing /

editing is

required.

1 point

Submitted

work is

difficult to

read and/or

understand.

OR, work

has

significant

errors in

formatting,

spelling,

grammar,

punctuation,

or word

usage which

detract from

the overall

professional

appearance

of the work.

0 points

No

submission.

First Critique Excellent Acceptable Needs Significant Improvement

Missing or No Work Submitted

Criterion Score

11/18/21, 9:51 PM Rubric Assessment - CSIA 413 7381 Cybersecurity Policy, Plans, and Programs (2218) - UMGC Learning Management System

https://learn.umgc.edu/d2l/lms/competencies/rubric/rubrics_assessment_results.d2l?ou=616134&evalObjectId=3479296&evalObjectType=5&userId=… 7/11

First Critique Excellent Acceptable Needs Significant Improvement

Missing or No Work Submitted

Criterion Score

Analysis / 1010 points

The critique

posting provided

three or more

suggestions for

improvement in

content which

were based upon

an analysis of the

short paper (how

well it met the

content

requirements).

Provided

examples which

could be

incorporated into

the short paper

to improve or

refine it.

Authoritative

sources were

cited as

appropriate. The

posting

addressed the

peer author by

name.

8.5 points

The critique

posting provided

at least three

suggestions for

improvement in

content which

were based upon

an analysis of the

short paper (how

well it met the

content

requirements).

Authoritative

sources were

cited as

appropriate. The

posting

addressed the

peer author by

name.

6 points

The posting did

not provide a

critique of the

short paper. The

posting may have

included

compliments or

"good job" type

comments.

0 points

The analysis was

missing (or not

submitted before

11:59 PM ET

Tuesday night).

OR the

submitted

critique was

copied (not the

student's own

original work).

11/18/21, 9:51 PM Rubric Assessment - CSIA 413 7381 Cybersecurity Policy, Plans, and Programs (2218) - UMGC Learning Management System

https://learn.umgc.edu/d2l/lms/competencies/rubric/rubrics_assessment_results.d2l?ou=616134&evalObjectId=3479296&evalObjectType=5&userId=… 8/11

First Critique Excellent Acceptable Needs Significant Improvement

Missing or No Work Submitted

Criterion Score

Professionalis

m

/ 55 points

The critique was

written in an

appropriate tone

of voice for a

peer-to-peer

communication.

No formatting,

grammar,

spelling, or

punctuation

errors.

Authoritative

sources were

appropriately

cited. Submitted

work shows

outstanding

organization and

the use of color,

fonts, titles,

headings and

sub-headings,

etc. is

appropriate to

the assignment

type.

4 points

The critique was

written in an

appropriate tone

of voice for a

peer-to-peer

communication.

Authoritative

sources were

appropriately

cited. Work

contains minor

errors in

formatting,

grammar, spelling

or punctuation

which do not

significantly

impact

professional

appearance.

Work needs

some polishing

to improve

professional

appearance.

3 points

The tone of voice

used in the

critique was not

appropriate for a

peer-to-peer

communication

in the workplace.

OR, there were

errors in

formatting,

spelling,

grammar, or

punctuation

which need

attention /

editing to

improve

professional

appearance of

the work.

0 points

No submission

(or not submitted

before 11:59 PM

ET Tuesday

night). Or, the

critique was

copied (not the

student's own

original work).

Second

Critique Excellent Acceptable

Needs Significant Improvement

Missing or No Work Submitted

Criterion Score

11/18/21, 9:51 PM Rubric Assessment - CSIA 413 7381 Cybersecurity Policy, Plans, and Programs (2218) - UMGC Learning Management System

https://learn.umgc.edu/d2l/lms/competencies/rubric/rubrics_assessment_results.d2l?ou=616134&evalObjectId=3479296&evalObjectType=5&userId=… 9/11

Second

Critique Excellent Acceptable

Needs Significant Improvement

Missing or No Work Submitted

Criterion Score

Analysis / 1010 points

The critique

posting provided

three or more

suggestions for

improvement in

content which

were based upon

an analysis of the

short paper (how

well it met the

content

requirements).

Provided

examples which

could be

incorporated into

the short paper

to improve or

refine it.

Authoritative

sources were

cited as

appropriate. The

posting

addressed the

peer author by

name.

8.5 points

The critique

posting provided

at least three

suggestions for

improvement in

content which

were based upon

an analysis of the

short paper (how

well it met the

content

requirements).

Authoritative

sources were

cited as

appropriate. The

posting

addressed the

peer author by

name.

6 points

The posting did

not provide a

critique of the

short paper. The

posting may have

included

compliments or

"good job" type

comments.

0 points

The analysis was

missing (or not

submitted before

11:59 PM ET

Tuesday night).

OR the

submitted

critique was

copied (not the

student's own

original work).

11/18/21, 9:51 PM Rubric Assessment - CSIA 413 7381 Cybersecurity Policy, Plans, and Programs (2218) - UMGC Learning Management System

https://learn.umgc.edu/d2l/lms/competencies/rubric/rubrics_assessment_results.d2l?ou=616134&evalObjectId=3479296&evalObjectType=5&userId… 10/11

Second

Critique Excellent Acceptable

Needs Significant Improvement

Missing or No Work Submitted

Criterion Score

Professionalis

m

/ 55 points

The critique was

written in an

appropriate tone

of voice for a

peer-to-peer

communication.

No formatting,

grammar,

spelling, or

punctuation

errors.

Authoritative

sources were

appropriately

cited. Submitted

work shows

outstanding

organization and

the use of color,

fonts, titles,

headings and

sub-headings,

etc. is

appropriate to

the assignment

type.

4 points

The critique was

written in an

appropriate tone

of voice for a

peer-to-peer

communication.

Authoritative

sources were

appropriately

cited. Work

contains minor

errors in

formatting,

grammar, spelling

or punctuation

which do not

significantly

impact

professional

appearance.

Work needs

some polishing

to improve

professional

appearance.

3 points

The tone of voice

used in the

critique was not

appropriate for a

peer-to-peer

communication

in the workplace.

OR, there were

errors in

formatting,

spelling,

grammar, or

punctuation

which need

attention /

editing to

improve

professional

appearance of

the work.

0 points

No submission

(or not submitted

before 11:59 PM

ET Tuesday

night). Or, the

critique was

copied (not the

student's own

original work).

Contributions

to Discussion Excellent Acceptable

Needs Improvement

Missing or No Work Submitted

Criterion Score

11/18/21, 9:51 PM Rubric Assessment - CSIA 413 7381 Cybersecurity Policy, Plans, and Programs (2218) - UMGC Learning Management System

https://learn.umgc.edu/d2l/lms/competencies/rubric/rubrics_assessment_results.d2l?ou=616134&evalObjectId=3479296&evalObjectType=5&userId… 11/11

Total / 100

Overall Score

Contributions

to Discussion Excellent Acceptable

Needs Improvement

Missing or No Work Submitted

Criterion Score

Follow-up

Reply or

Comment #1

/ 10

Follow-up

Reply or

Comment #2

/ 10

10 points

Posted a follow-

up reply or

comment which

demonstrated

critical thinking

and added value

to the discussion.

8.5 points

Posted an

acceptable

follow-up reply

or comment

which added

some value to

the discussion.

6 points

Posted a follow-

up reply or

comment but

added little value

to the discussion.

0 points

Posting was

missing (or not

submitted before

11:59 PM ET

Tuesday night).

Or the posting

did not add value

to the discussion.

10 points

Posted a follow-

up reply or

comment which

demonstrated

critical thinking

and added value

to the discussion.

8.5 points

Posted an

acceptable

follow-up reply

or comment

which added

some value to

the discussion.

6 points

Posted a follow-

up reply or

comment but

added little value

to the discussion.

0 points

Posting was

missing (or not

submitted before

11:59 PM ET

Tuesday night).

Or the posting

did not add value

to the discussion.

Do Not Use This Block 0 points minimum